Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battleship News

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Battleship News

    Robert Novak
    Marines fear scuttling battleships

    December 5, 2005

    BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

    U.S. Marines, while fighting valiantly in Iraq, are on the verge of serious defeat on Capitol Hill. A Senate-House conference on the Armed Services authorization bill convening this week is considering turning the Navy's last two battleships, the Iowa and Wisconsin, into museums. Marine officers fear that deprives them of vital fire support in an uncertain future.

    Gen. Michael W. Hagee, the current Commandant of the Marine Corps, testified on April 1, 2003, that loss of naval surface fire support from battleships would place his troops "at considerable risk." On July 29 this year, Hagee asserted: "Our aviation is really quite good, but it can, in fact, be weathered."

    The Navy high command is determined to get rid of the battleships, relying for support on an expensive new destroyer at least 10 years in the future. This is how Washington works. Defense contractors, Pentagon bureaucrats, Congressional staffers and career-minded officers make this decision that may ultimately be paid for by Marine and Army infantrymen.

    Marine desire to reactivate the Iowa and Wisconsin runs counter to the DD(X) destroyer of the future. It will not be ready before 2015, costing between $4.7 billion and $7 billion. Keeping the battleships in reserve costs only $250,000 a year, with reactivation estimated at $500 million (taking six months to a year) and full modernization more than $1.5 billion (less than two years).

    On the modernized battleships, 18 big (16-inch) guns could fire 460 projectiles in nine minutes and take out hardened targets in North Korea. In contrast, the DD(X) will fire only 70 long-range attack projectiles at $1 million a minute. The new destroyer will rely on conventional 155-millimeter rounds that Marines say cannot reach the shore. Former longtime National Security Council staffer William L. Stearman, now executive director of the U.S. Naval Fire Support Association, told me, "In short, this enormously expensive ship cannot fulfill its primary mission: provide naval surface fire support for the Marine Corps."

    The Navy's anti-battleship bias began Dec. 7, 1941, when the Japanese surprise attack destroyed the U.S. Pacific Fleet's battleships. Although admirals in 1946 vowed never to bring back battleships, they served effectively in the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf wars. Congressional pressure brought the USS New Jersey to Vietnam for six months, leading the Marine Commandant, Gen. Leonard Chapman, to conclude, "Thousands of American lives were saved." The Marines calculated that 80 percent of 1,067 U.S. planes lost in Vietnam could have been saved had battleships fought the entire war.

    The admirals moved to get rid of battleships forever when GOP Rep. Richard Pombo proposed sending the USS Iowa to Stockton, Calif., as a museum. The Navy supports that as well as making the USS Wisconsin a museum in Norfolk, Va., and repealing the existing requirement to keep two battleships in reserve. The Navy's anti-battleship campaign began March 15 when Adm. Charles Hamilton briefed the House Armed Forces Committee. It is no coincidence that Hamilton has been the Navy's point man promoting DD(X).

    Never has it been clearer how the military-industrial complex functions. Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics and BAE Systems are mobilized behind DD(X). Congressional staffers, eyeing a future in the Pentagon or the armaments industry, know the way to future advancement is not to be pro-battleship.

    "The Marine Corps supports the strategic purpose of reactivating two battleships," said a Nov. 19, 2004, General Accounting Office report. Since then, current Marine leaders have adhered to the naval position, but not retired Marines. Gen. P.X. Kelley, the renowned former commandant said in a June statement: "I would hate to see a premature demise of the battleships ... without a suitable replacement on station. In my personal experience in combat, the battleship is the most effective naval fire support platform in the history of naval warfare."

    The Army is an interested but silent listener to this debate. Its generals have failed in their fight over stressing tube artillery. If Congress now turns the last battleships into museums, the losers will be the grunts who carry rifles.

  • #2
    Its not soo much that im a battleship crazy that I hate their decision. Its the fact that I believe our Marines should have the best protection available to them at all times. After all they are oftenly the first ones on the ground and the first casualties. If they have nothing readily available to protect them then give them 2 of the Iowa class strictly to serve the Marine Core and its operations until they start delivering the DDX destroyers whenever that may be but for now atleast cover their asses while they do what they need to keep our country safe
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 08 Dec 05,, 21:55.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

    Comment


    • #3
      I wonder what Mr. Novak would say to the Marine combat veteran who said of another similarly slanted piece: "I'd love to see this idiot explain what good NSFS would have done in the El Burqan, on Objective Rhino, or crossing the Diyala River bridge."

      Now let me issue a caveat: I am not against NSFS but it needs to move forwards, not backwards and I can easily see the criticisms of the DDX's gun system.

      As I have posted in another thread I am not exactly smitten with the DDX but that being said...

      When I was thinking BBackwards, I missed a key concept in the DDX system until it was put in proper perspective: that integrated propulsion system combined with the ability to readily shunt large amounts of energy around the ship opens up vast possibilities such as DEW capability...striking targets over the horizon reflected off of UAVs...or perhaps pop up satellites...or having the ability to shock the **** out of a predatory giant squid

      I am not the DDX's biggest fan and suspect it is going to be overspeced, overpriced and resultingly under capable but in general it is a step forward.
      Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

      Comment


      • #4
        Heres an excerpt from another article and a link to the entire story:

        Until last year, the Marines supported reactivating the ships. The Marine commandant, Gen. Michael W. Hagee, told Congress two years ago that an absence of adequate naval gunfire support placed his troops "at considerable risk," and several retired Marine generals have spoken in favor of the battleship plan.

        The Marines now say that bringing back the big battleships would be too expensive and the ships would require too many sailors to operate.

        Marine Corps spokeswoman Maj. Gabrielle Chapin said the Marines thought it was "no longer feasible nor economical" to keep the battleships in reserve status.

        She said the Marines now backed the Navy's research and development efforts into new extended-range munitions and its plan to commission the first DD(X) in 2014.

        William L. Stearman, the executive director of the Naval Fire Support Association, said battleship advocates supported the development of the DD(X), at least as a research and development program, but didn't think the DD(X) could provide Marines with the support that battleships could until future systems come on line.

        Retired Marine Corps Gen. John J. Sheehan said the battleship wasn't only a potent symbol of American power but also an asset that existed now, instead of one that might exist in the future.

        "You can argue that if the B-52 (bomber) continues to play a role in the U.S. war-fighting tool kit, then the same argument applies to the battleship, especially with a cruise-missile capability," Sheehan said.


        http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/13372162.htm

        Comment


        • #5
          Retired Marine Corps Gen. John J. Sheehan said the battleship wasn't only a potent symbol of American power but also an asset that existed now, instead of one that might exist in the future.

          "You can argue that if the B-52 (bomber) continues to play a role in the U.S. war-fighting tool kit, then the same argument applies to the battleship, especially with a cruise-missile capability," Sheehan said.
          I'm not so sure this position stands up to objective review:

          A couple of billion dollars and four years out is not exactly and "asset that existed now".

          The B52s are out killing bad guys right now, not a couple billion dollars and four years from now.

          The B52s are flying, the Battleships are rusting and the USN has no lack of cruise missles platforms in the air, on the surface and undersea but why bother with the facts if they are too pesky?.
          Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rickusn
            Gen. Michael W. Hagee, the current Commandant of the Marine Corps, testified on April 1, 2003, that loss of naval surface fire support from battleships would place his troops "at considerable risk." On July 29 this year, Hagee asserted: "Our aviation is really quite good, but it can, in fact, be weathered."
            Bout says it all, doesn't it?

            And what higher source could one possibly want than the commandant of the USMC?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rickusn
              Marine Corps spokeswoman Maj. Gabrielle Chapin said the Marines thought it was "no longer feasible nor economical" to keep the battleships in reserve status.
              Yeah, cause that 500k a year to keep them mothballed is a real budget breaker...

              How bout this cuz.......for the cost of 100 Ospreys they could FULLY fund the BBs in active duty for a whole decade.

              Comment


              • #8
                I think they will continue to argue for awhile atleast until the DDX comes online.
                I do support them becuse the fire support they give is overkill. How much better to protect our troops especially in hostile territory. Maybe not in a primary role but keep one warmed up on the bench just in case they unthinkable were to happen. ;) The old adage "cya"
                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                Comment


                • #9
                  ahem?

                  "The Army is a shell fired by the Royal Navy" - with appologies. The Marines are still caught in a divorce settlement.
                  Where's the bloody gin? An army marches on its liver, not its ruddy stomach.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X